Terrorism and SF

[major_clanger]

I've seen a fair bit of discussion of the re-introduction into the Terrorism Bill of the provisions relating to 'glorification of terrorism', and in particular their possible impact on sf. Now, it's by no means certain that this will make it into law; the House of Lords could vote to amend the Bill again. It is unusual for this to happen, as there is a Parliamentary tradition (although it does not have the force of a Constitutional Convention) that the Lords will not try to re-insert an amendment already rejected by the Commons. However, it isn't unknown, although if it did happen then the Government could use the Parliament Acts to ram the legislation through, at the cost of waiting another year.

Even if it does get enacted though, on the basis of reading the legislation in question I have grave doubts as to whether a prosecution against the author or publisher of a work of fiction would succeed.

The key elements of the Bill are laid down in Sections 2 to 4:


(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he publishes a statement to which this section applies or causes another to publish such a statement; and
(b) at the time he publishes it or causes it to be published, he—
(i) intends members of the public to be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate acts of terrorism or Convention offences; or
(ii) is reckless as to whether members of the public will be directly or indirectly encouraged or otherwise induced by the statement to commit, prepare or instigate such acts or offences.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “indirect encouragement” comprises the making of a statement describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it.

(4) For the purposes of this section the questions how a statement is likely to be understood and what members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer from it must be determined having regard both—
(a) to the contents of the statement as a whole; and
(b) to the circumstances and manner of its publication.


The crucial element here is s.3: "describing terrorism in such a way that the listener would infer that he should emulate it" (my emphasis added). It is not enough to publish a story that depicts an act of terrorism, or even one in which terrorism is depicted positively, or a character advocates it. Rather, a story would have to be presented in such a way that, according to the criminal standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt it was seen to be an incitement for the reader to act upon it. And it would not be enough just to incite general interest in or sympathy for terrorism; the key word is 'emulate', and under the central principle of judicial interpretation that words are as far as possible to be given their normal definitions, this means acting out the scenario described.

All of this is made even harder to pin on fiction by s.4(b), which makes the offence dependant on the form of publication. I would suggest that for the Bill to be even remotely compatible with Schedule 1 Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, any statement presented as a work of fiction is going to be tested against an extremely high barrier as to what constitutes 'incitement' - or in other words, the fact that a statement is presented as a work of fiction will be a very strong defence.

I can imagine fiction falling foul of this legislation. But to do so, it would have to be written specifically - I would go so far as to say contrived - with this aim in mind, and I don't see that most writers of any ilk would deliberately, or even inadvertently, do this.

Comments

[drplokta]

According to the extract you reproduce above, the story doesn't have to encourage anyone to "infer that he should emulate it", you merely have to prove that the author was reckless as to whether or not it will encourage terrorism. I could publish my shopping list, and be prosecuted if I didn't consider before publication whether or not it might encourage terrorism.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

That would be a pretty strange shopping list.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

No; 'reckless' has a specific meaning in English criminal law. To commit an offence under the 'recklessness' limb of s.2, you would have to know that the material you are publishing could reasonably induce someone to commit an act or emulate a description of it. In other words, specific foreknowledge of the possible consequences combined with wilful disregard of them is required.

So, if your shopping list was titled 'INGREDIENTS FOR BOMB' and contained a list of bomb-making materials, it might fall foul of this section, although it might also be considered as terrorist training material which is covered separately.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

So what really does it add to existing law? Unless you're expecting to have to deal with a bunch of ordinary white guys trying to persuade us to blow up the Belgians.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

The argument is (and it is a pretty weak one) that at present there is no legal provision that gives a good prospect of successfully prosecuting someone for writing a pamphlet that says, for example, that the 7/7 bombings were a Good Thing, and if more people downloaded the recipe for acetone peroxide, mixed some up, put it in a backpack and walked onto a tube train, that would be even better.

A lot of people in the legal and judicial world frankly doubt that existing legislation couldn't deal with this sort of thing if required. However, I've seen little suggestion from such people that fiction would or could be a target of it.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

So, in theory at least, they could still do a show like Blake's 7?

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Maybe... but what about a show like 1990 or Edge of Darkness where the story actively encourages action not dissimilar from terrorism against governments not unlike those in power at the time?

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

But Marks Thomas placed a bounty of George Bushs head as a retorical device.....

..... would that count. Certainly it could be seen as reckless encouragement...